As none of you probably are aware, a series of Pro-America / Support our Troops rallies went on across the nation this weekend. As your humble and unabashedly Pro-American correspondent, I would like to share some numbers with you folks that I've worked up based on a quick scan of the internet.

Cleveland: 7-10,000 people
(*Note: Temperature: -10!)

Houston: ca. 10,000 people

San Antonio: ca. 8-10,000 people

Nashville: ca. 4,000 people
(*Note: Three separate rallies!)

Tulsa: ca. 4,000 people
(*Note: Not including the 13 anti-war protesters)

Melbourne, FL: ca. 2,000 people

Seoul, South Korea: ca. 100,000 people

This list doesn't include the dozens of smaller rallies that took place across the country with up to 1,000 people attending. Spearheaded by a couple local and national talk-radio hosts, it looks like more rallies are planned for the weeks ahead.

The question is, considering the massive pre, during, and post-protest coverage the "anti-war" rallies of several weeks ago got in the national news (including instructions on where to meet and how to get there), why isn't the media pumping up these in a similar fashion?

ExpandCollapse

New Member

People who are NOT protesting anything rarely go to rallies; go on marches etc.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that relates to my point - the fact is that the anti war demonstrations are the largest that have ever occured in many countries (UK, Italy & Spain for example) are you arguing that unless a person joins a demonstration they support war with Iraq?

I don't understand the logic behind that at all.

I will back my President in whichever decision he makes and stand behind him and my country.

Click to expand...

what if you don't view the interests of your president and the interests of your country as the same thing?

I think it is in the interests of Bush and company that there be a war, I do not think that it is in Americas interest.

BTW, we are ALREADY at WAR ...it just hasn't been declared yet!

Click to expand...

that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Anyway, to get back to the topic the reason there is not huge media coverage of 'pro-war' marches is because they are not huge events.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I am saying that anti-war protests are bigger because they are the ones protesting!

Click to expand...

okay - could it not be simply because the majority of people are against and illegal and immoral war of conquest?

I think it is in the best interests of our country. You don't honestly think our President is doing this for monetary gain

Click to expand...

no I don't think he is doing it for monetary gain - I just don't think it is in the best interests of the United States to redefine the concept of 'legitimate' war, wreck the agreements that have kept peace between the majority of nations for the past 40 years, alienate itself totally from its allies and potentially create a large number of terrorists.

The fact is that Iraq is, in no way, a threat to the United States, Iraq has not attacked the United States and there are no proven (or even probable) links with terrorists that threaten the United States. Why are you going to war?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

The fact is that Iraq is, in no way, a threat to the United States, Iraq has not attacked the United States and there are no proven (or even probable) links with terrorists that threaten the United States.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

ExpandCollapse

New Member

But you're not an American so that's not your call to make now, is it?

Click to expand...

okay, replace the word president with prime minister, bush with blair and America with UK.

redefining the notion of legimate war, undermining international law and endangering all of us in an illegal war has implications for everyone not just Americans and as such everyone should make their opinion heard.

I don't believe that pro-american and pro-war with iraq are the same thing.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by InHim2002: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you for real?

Click to expand...

yes - do you have any actual evidence to prove otherwise?

If you do you should forward it onto your government immediately because at the moment they have none. </font>[/QUOTE]…as far as you know. Colin Powell released some evidence at the U.N. recently, but further release of more explicit and detailed materials would endanger the lives of intelligence officers and special forces soldiers currently in Iraq. Furthermore, release of certain information would reveal methods and sources of intelligence to the enemies of the U.S. and Britain, causing them to be ineffective in the future.

It’s a tough situation for societies that cherish freedom of information, but it’s the reality we face.

Let's go through my statements:

"The fact is that Iraq is, in no way, a threat to the United States"

- True, Iraq does not have the capability to attack the USA

Click to expand...

This is patently false. U.S. government agencies are tracking persons who are believed to be Iraqi intelligence officers in the United States. Some weapons of mass destruction do not need armies or missiles to reach their targets.

"has not attacked the United States"

this is, obviously, true

Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the President of the United States a little over ten years ago. If the attempted assassination of the nation’s chief executive is not an attempted attack on the nation, I don’t know what is.

""there are no proven (or even probable) links with terrorists that threaten the United States"

This is true - even Bush & Blair do not pretend otherwise.

Click to expand...

Actually, Bush has intimated otherwise… There seems to be a connection but they haven’t released clear evidence.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

…as far as you know. Colin Powell released some evidence at the U.N. recently, but further release of more explicit and detailed materials would endanger the lives of intelligence officers and special forces soldiers currently in Iraq. Furthermore, release of certain information would reveal methods and sources of intelligence to the enemies of the U.S. and Britain, causing them to be ineffective in the future.

Click to expand...

If the UK & US had evidence they would present it - Powell, himself, said that he was compromising his sources when he presented his last round of 'evidence' to the UN. America could provide the Blix with the locations of the WMD - sorry, I forgot, they have:

British officials said privately that the additional time would enable inspectors to act on new intelligence being given to inspectors by U.S. and British intelligence agencies, and could lead to the breakthrough proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. But with crucial council meetings the week of Jan. 27, allies are growing nervous that based on the evidence available now, Washington's case for an invasion will not be persuasive.

''In terms of showing there's evidence of weapons of mass destruction, neither the Bush administration or the inspectors have shown that,'' says former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Policy. ''It would be a big mistake for the United States to move ahead politically without showing Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.''

This is patently false. U.S. government agencies are tracking persons who are believed to be Iraqi intelligence officers in the United States. Some weapons of mass destruction do not need armies or missiles to reach their targets

Click to expand...

this is no evidence of a threat at all - they may some 'intellegence officers' in the USA - please explain how that represents a threat?

Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the President of the United States a little over ten years ago. If the attempted assassination of the nation’s chief executive is not an attempted attack on the nation, I don’t know what is.

Click to expand...

how about an army invading the USA? or launching an attack on America?

Actually, Bush has intimated otherwise… There seems to be a connection but they haven’t released clear evidence.

Click to expand...

Blair & Bush have backed away from that claim - if they had any evidence they would present it, without a shodow of a doubt

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!